Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidural Analgesia Versus Different Analgesic Regimes Following Oesophagogastric Resection.

Abstract

Effective analgesia following open oesophagogastric (OG) resection is considered a key determinant of recovery. This review aimed to compare epidural to alternative analgesic techniques in patients undergoing major open resection for OG cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials comparing epidural with alternative analgesic methods in open OG surgery. Primary outcome was the overall post-operative morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication rates, length of stay (LOS) and pain scores at 24 h. Six trials which comprised of 249 patients were identified (3 following gastrectomy and 3 following oesophagectomy). Following gastrectomy, secondary outcomes including pulmonary complications and dynamic pain scores at 24 h were improved in the epidural groups. No difference was observed in overall morbidity rates or LOS. Following oesophagectomy, overall morbidity rates were not reported at all. LOS was not shortened, and rest pain was not significantly different in the epidural group, but dynamic pain scores were reported to be improved. Few trials of analgesic regimen have been performed following open OG resection. In those trials that have been performed, epidural analgesia has not been shown to reduce overall morbidity. Epidural is associated with reduced pulmonary complications after gastrectomy, but no benefit has been shown after oesophagectomy. Whilst widespread investigation of minimally invasive OG techniques currently takes place, it is clear that the most effective patient pathway following open OG surgery, particularly oesophagectomy, is still not proven. Further trials are required.